Glenn Greenwald makes a claim in a blog post today captioned "Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?", that he simply cannot back up.
Greenwald claims:
On the vital question of whether Obama is committed to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July, 2011 -- or whether that's just an aspirational target subject to being moved -- the statements from key administration officials aren't merely in tension with one another, but are exact opposites
He tnen goes on to provide the following examples of statements from key administration officials that aren't exact opposites but merely in tension with one another:
Agence France-Press, yesterday:
President Barack Obama's administration said that a July 2011 target date to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan was not set in stone. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and the top uniformed US military officer, Admiral Michael Mullen, sought to sell the new approach under fire from Obama's hawkish Republican foes.
During hours of questioning by two key committees, they made clear that his target date of starting a US troop withdrawal in 19 months' time -- a step some anti-escalation lawmakers, especially Democrats, had cheered -- could slip.
"I do not believe we have locked ourselves into leaving," said Clinton, who added the goal was "to signal very clearly to all audiences that the United States is not interested in occupying Afghanistan."
Gates said the extra troops Obama had ordered to Afghanistan would be in place in July 2010, that a December 2010 review of the war effort would shape the pace of the withdrawal, and that the target date could change.
CBS News, Wednesday:
I asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs if senators were incorrect calling the date a "target."
After the briefing, Gibbs went to the president for clarification. Gibbs then called me to his office to relate what the president said. The president told him it IS locked in -- there is no flexibility. Troops WILL start coming home in July 2011. Period. It's etched in stone. Gibbs said he even had the chisel.
[Emphasis in original.]
One issue with Greenwald's claim that "statements from key administration officials aren't merely in tension with one another" is that the most apparently contradictory statements offered by Greenwald as examples (bolded by Greenwald for emphasis) are paraphrases by reporters rather than quotes from administration officials: "a July 2011 target date to begin withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan was not set in stone" (attributed to "President Barack Obama's administration") and "It's etched in stone" (attributed to Robert Gibbs).
But that's not the most important flaw in Greenwald's argument. The bigger issue is that statements by key administration officials, while somewhat in tension, are not opposite at all. In fact, viewed in context, the tension that exists is completely understandable, inevitable and appropriate.
Even assuming that one administration official said that the July 2011 withdrawal date is etched in stone and another said that withdrawal is not, those statements are only semantically, not substantively, opposite and are not mutually exclusive.
It should be obvious to everyone that if it is self-evidently not in the best interest of this country to withdraw in July 2011, President Obama will not insist on beginning withdrawal just for the sake of "keeping his word." It's also obvious that if it were to be self-evidently obvious that if it were clearly in this country's best interest to no begin withdrawal, nobody would blame him for changing his mind.
The point of making the firm commitment is that if he doesn't begin withdrawal and it is not self-evidently in the nation's best interest not to begin withdrawal, he will pay a steep political price for not keeping his word.
The fact that he will pay a steep political price for breaking his word absent a compelling reason, makes it clear to all of the relevant parties that he is very serious about withdrawal.
Under grilling from hawkish Republicans, Secretaries Clinton and Gates were both forced to state the obvious which is that while President Obama is strongly and seriously commited to beginning withdrawal in July 20ll, nobody can predict the future and if it is obvious in July 2011 that it is not in the nation's best interest to begin withdrawal, we will not. Any other position would be completely irresponsible and reckless.
Robert Gibbs on the other hand was making the point that the withdrawal date is very serious and not just a target subject to change at a whim.
Taken together, these points make the policy clear: We are seriously committed to begin withdrawing our troops by July 2011. Our strategy is going to be built around that commitment. But if for some unforeseen reason it becomes clear that it is not in the nation's best interest to begin withdrawal, the President retains the ability to revise the plan.
Part of the problem with Greenwald's analysis is that he takes an inherently subjective concept, firmness vs. flexibility, and treats it as though it were a concept that can be measured objectively such as, say, increase vs. decrease.
If one administration official says: "We will begin decreasing troop levels in 2011" and another says "we will begin increasing troop levels in 2011" they have made objectively opposite statements.
If one administration official says "Our commitment to withdrawing in July 2011 is firm" and another says "our commitment to withdrawing in July 2011 is flexible" they have not made objectively opposite statements.
Glenn Greenwald likes to castigate the "Very Serious People" in the MSM for their timidity in questioning government action, but when he goes into high dudgeon on the basis of semantic sophistry the way he did in this blog post, it's hard to take him "Very Seriously" at all.